or Aldus and
Elzevir, than for Virgil and Horace. If you talk of Herodotus, he breaks
out into a panegyric upon Harry Stephans. He thinks he gives you an
account of an author, when he tells you the subject he treats of, the
name of the editor, and the year in which it was printed. Or if you draw
him into further particulars, he cries up the goodness of the paper,
extols the diligence of the corrector, and is transported with the
beauty of the letter. This he looks upon to be sound learning and
substantial criticism. As for those who talk of the fineness of style,
and the justness of thought, or describe the brightness of any
particular passages; nay, though they write themselves in the genius and
spirit of the author they admire, Tom looks upon them as men of
superficial learning, and flashy parts.

I had yesterday morning a visit from this learned idiot (for that is the
light in which I consider every pedant), when I discovered in him some
little touches of the coxcomb which I had not before observed. Being
very full of the figure which he makes in the republic of letters, and
wonderfully satisfied with his great stock of knowledge, he gave me
broad intimations, that he did not "believe" in all points as his
forefathers had done. He then communicated to me a thought of a certain
author upon a passage of Virgil's account of the dead, which I made the
subject of a late paper.[199] This thought has taken very much among men
of Tom's pitch and understanding, though universally exploded by all
that know how to construe Virgil, or have any relish of antiquity. Not
to trouble my reader with it, I found upon the whole, that Tom did not
believe a future state of rewards and punishments, because AEneas, at his
leaving the empire of the dead, passed through the gate of ivory, and
not through that of horn. Knowing that Tom had not sense enough to give
up an opinion which he had once received, that he might avoid wrangling,
I told him, that Virgil possibly had his oversights as well as another
author. "Ah! Mr. Bickerstaff," says he, "you would have another opinion
of him, if you would read him in Daniel Heinsius' edition. I have
perused him myself several times in that edition," continued he; "and
after the strictest and most malicious examination, could find but two
faults in him: one of them is in the 'AEneids,' where there are two
commas instead of a parenthesis; and another in the third 'Georgic,'
where you may find a semicolon